User talk:Jrounceville

Jrounceville, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Jrounceville!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Edward J. Konieczny, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you move on, please read this: WP:BLP. Such allegations need to have very strong secondary sourcing. If you don't have that, or don't know what that means, please do not reinstate the content--thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I provided MULTIPLE LINKS TO ACTUAL INFORMATION from MULTIPLE CREDIBLE SITES. I am well acquainted with this situation and I am not vandalizing ANYTHING. Jrounceville (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: in my opinion, what you provided were not "multiple credible sites", though the second one was better than the Facebook link that was there in an earlier version. I don't doubt that you are familiar with the situation, but please acquaint yourself with our guidelines; thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three secondary sources. I can provide a primary one if you want. I can provide the link to the actual open letter from the bishops. After reading through your link about living persons, I see nothing in the guidelines that I violated, other than you don't like facebook as a source, which I corrected. I didn't put any color or commentary on anything. I simply stated facts and linked to secondary sources for those facts. Jrounceville (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not; at best you provided two, because https://houseofdeputies.org is a primary source. Livingchurch.org is a website, and how reliable and independent of the subject is is not immediately clear, and that applies to MinistryWatch also.

You clearly do not know what "reliable secondary sources" requires, and I urge you not to restore that content until you have such sources. Oh, one more thing--don't do this thing, this passive-aggressive "you don't like facebook as a source". No one should like Facebook as a source, and it is simply unacceptable as a source for a Wikipedia article, especially in a BLP. Finally, no, I do not believe you read that policy carefully, but unfortunately adhering to the BLP is not optional. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you had started with this, it would have been an entirely different matter. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no meaningful difference between ENS and livingchurch.org. They're both Episcopalian / Anglican news organizations, but whatever you need to be satisfied. Similarly ministrywatch is a charitable giving watch group, not even affiliated with the Episcopal church. Their mission is transparency on such matters so that people know where their charitable giving is going. So they're not some biased entity trying to sink someone.

I feel like it's necessary to comment on some of what you said above. With regard to the facebook link, I doubt you actually clicked on it. It wasn't to a facebook *article* or *meme* or something. It was to a photograph of a printout of a primary source document (the open letter from the bishops). However, I *do* have the ability to provide a link to the google docs link itself, so if that's better I could provide that instead (though it doesn't include physical hand written signatures, so I'd say it's debatable which one is the actual primary source).

I'm not restoring any of the content. You threatened me with taking away my ability to edit content, and said I was vandalizing things, without any actual evidence of that. You just didn't like my sources, and jumped to the conclusion that I was vandalizing. So, I'm not touching a thing. However, this person *is* under investigation, there's plenty of sources for it and I provided some of them. I didn't exaggerate or otherwise malign this person. I stated facts and provided evidence. Jrounceville (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you go back to the article or not is up to you. If you do, don't use primary documents as sources. I don't see why a "charitable giving watch group" should be accepted as a reliable, independent, secondary source. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>I don't see why a "charitable giving watch group" should be accepted as a reliable, independent, secondary source.

1) Reliable: MinistryWatch has no interest in any particular situation going on at any particular institution. Their interest is making sure that people in general know what their charitable giving is going toward. If you were in this person's diocese (or even in TEC in general), you'd probably want to know that this person was involved in a sexual harassment investigation, yeah? It might affect your choices on charitable giving to TEC. MinistryWatch has no reason to go after any particular individual. They exist to make people aware of inappropriate or potentially inappropriate activities anywhere they exist, which is evidenced by *all the other content* on their site, faithfully reported since 1999, almost a quarter century. Perhaps more importantly, all they were doing is re-hosting a news report from RNS (Religion News Service), which is like the AP for news related to religion. I have no idea what standard you are applying to decide which news sources are reliable, frankly.

2) Independent: they are not affiliated with the Episcopal Church in any way

3) Secondary source: they are reporting what has been reported to them via another news outlet, just like every newspaper that uses an AP story.

In my opinion, you simply made a mistake that I was attempting to vandalize this entry, because it probably *looked* a bit like a vandalizing addition. I was not vandalizing anything, as I'm sure you can now see. Unfortunately you're trying to justify your mistake by asserting that my sources aren't good enough, thereby suppressing an otherwise perfectly reasonable addition to this person's bio. People have a right to know important information about influential public figures such as this person. I don't really understand the sourcing standard you're applying, and so I'm not adding anything, since you've threatened to take away my editing ability altogether. It is unfortunate that you've taken this position. Maybe someone else will read this and choose to use up their "one warning" to restore the content. Jrounceville (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]